Based on the game by Crossnet-Pie.
What are some animals that disprove evolution?
There are no animals that disprove evolution.
Even finding one animal that was odd and seemed to contradict something would not disprove evolution.
The evidence in the fossil record which supports evolution is so overwhelming that a single fossil or animal would be regarded as curious, but compared to the mountains of evidence we have it would be considered an anomaly.
More data wlike it would be needed.
Natural selection was initially formulated without the aid of much of a fossil record, and subsequent DNA evidence can stand completely without it. The theories that explain evolution are not “proved” or “disproved”.
That is what happens in mathematics or logic.
Science does not work that way.
Science is based on an interplay between theory and evidence a single point of data is not enough to completely destroy a theory.
The reverse is also true.
A really good seemingly great theory can't win out against overwhelming data. If a single animal in life or the fossil record was found that seemed to suggest something different than the current theory, it would not “disprove” the theory.
Eventually, a new theory would develop to include these oddities.
That theory would not be Young Earth Creationism.
It would be a slightly different version of the current theory.
To overturn a working theory with 150 years of evidence one would need mountains of new evidence.
Not an animal.
There would need to be many problems that cannot be explained with the current theory and then a new theory that explained it better. The theories of evolution are based on three main principles: variation, heritability and selection.
Given these three principles, evolution must occur.
If you wanted to destroy the theory you would need to do some of these things: Show that mutations do not happen Show that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits Show that mutations are not passed down through the generations Show that no mutation can produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection. Show that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals. Show that "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) do not result in the genes that cause that becoming more common in a population over time. Show that that change in frequencies never causes change into other species. None of those are going to happen.
If you can show some of those things, you still need a Better theory that explains the new evidence.
Young Earth Creation is not going to do that.
Showing some of those things would not throw out all of geology, and much of cosmology, chemistry, and physics. And it is worth knowing that one, can and many do, understand that the earth and the universe is very old and evolutionary theory is the best we have right now, and still be religious. It is worth noting that the largest Christian group in the world (Catholic), does not disavow evolution.
They say it is how god works in the world.
The man who first proposed the Big Bang and was part of figuring out the age of the universe was a Belgian Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître(1894–1966).
In 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism.
Pius XII also stated that nothing in Catholic doctrine is contradicted by a theory that suggests one species might evolve into another.
John Paul said that is was a “as an effectively proven fact.” Evolution, he said, is “an essential subject which deeply interests the Church” and “truth cannot contradict truth.” “Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.
It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge.
The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”